Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Wednesday Web Watch for July 16, 2014

Hats off to writer & blogger Hank Campbell and his science forum Science 2.0 where he recently challenged a review in the British Journal of Nutrition that found the “nutritional quality and safety of organic food was higher than conventional foods.”  Campbell provides highly compelling reasons why we should not take the Journal review too seriously.  A favorite passage, referring to one of the authors of the review, Charles Benbrook, is “[d]id this economist reinvent toxicology? Do toxic organic pesticides dissolve into rainbows when they are placed on a delivery truck? How can there so many fewer residues on organic food when it is known organic growers simply use different pesticides, not fewer?”  Another, once again referring to Benbrook, “he is an economist, not a biologist. Nothing wrong with economists talking about science, but if environmentalists and Mother Jones don’t let economists overturn climate studies, why would they endorse it in biology? That’s a mystery.”  Read Campbell’s insightful review here.